RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Auctions and outcomes

[Krista Papac <Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

My comments on your two points for consideration:

"Please consider the following -- a modification to the evaluation process so 
that the qualified applicant may alter the string for which it applies, one or 
more times, until it is not in any contention set."

I don't believe this is a workable solution. The AGB clearly states that 
strings cannot be modified once they have been submitted. This restriction 
exists to ensure the process is predictable and to ensure fairness to all 
applicants. I also believe allowing any applicant to alter their string after 
they've submitted their application creates a huge opportunity for gaming.

"Please also consider the following -- a modification to the contention process 
so that the ratio of supported to unsupported applicants pre contention is 
unchanged by the contention process."

I apologize, but I don't understand this proposal.

Finally, I tend to agree with others that this may not be a problem we can 
solve.

Krista Papac
Chief Strategy Officer
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Email: krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistry.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:27 PM
To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Auctions and outcomes


Colleagues,

During the call I asked Avri a question to clarify a point -- was the 
reference to auction fund made in the context of a supported applicant
and one possible outcome of the means to allocate a single string from
a contention set formed by the applicant's string and one or more other
strings of other applicants -- or was the reference to auction fund made
in the context of a general expectation of revenue generation through
auctions affecting non-qualified applications?

Avri's response was that it was the latter.

I then pointed out that we'd not addressed one aspect of "auction".

If we do nothing, make no recommendation, then it is reasonable to
characterize our approach to achieving the inclusion and diversity
goals expressed in Resolution 20 as meeting those goals except where
the applicant lacks a prior right to a string, as municipal
administrations do to the names of the municipalities, or where the
applicant meets the community type criteria of 14 out of 16 points.

Restated, we've overlooked the case of a qualified applicant which
applies for commercially attractive strings.

Re-restated, under the recommendations we're making to the Board,
no commercially attractive strings will go to supported applicants.

That is less than we were asked. We weren't asked to make only those
applications for commercially unattractive strings capable meeting
the application fee and subsequent obligations. We weren't asked to
find a means of reserving all three- and four- character strings,
and all keyword strings, for highly capitalized applicants from
developed economies. We weren't tasked to make the long and ugly
or the words and non-words no one wants affordible under the guise
of inclusion and diversity.

As several observed on the call, this may not be a problem we can
fix.

Here is one problem statement. There exists a JAS-qualified applicant.

At some point subsequent to the submition of the supported application,
the supported application and a non-supported application are determined
to form a contention set. If one or more applicants meets the 14/16 or
the public administration criteria, the determination of which of the
applications in the contention set is known. 

What happens if none of the applicants meet the 14/16 or the public
administration criteria? 

Please consider the following -- a modification to the evaluation
process so that the qualified applicant may alter the string for
which it applies, one or more times, until it is not in any contention
set.

Please also consider the following -- a modification to the contention
process so that the ratio of supported to unsupported applicants pre
contention is unchanged by the contention process.

There are more possible solutions. It is a subject I'd like to have
some staff interaction with, as it involves design of the process and
I think staff has considered some related scenarios.

Eric
the